The Robertson County School Board on March 24 reviewed its substitute‑teacher contract with ESS, receiving cost estimates, principal survey results and staffing projections as the board weighs whether to continue the vendor arrangement or resume in‑house management.

Board members and staff focused on three immediate concerns: how much the district pays for substitute coverage, whether a vendor improves fill rates enough to justify its fees, and what additional costs the district would incur if it returned to managing substitutes internally.

Finance and HR figures presented at the meeting show district substitute pay and vendor costs for recent school years. Salary and benefit payroll for substitutes in 2022–23 was $931,000. The first year under the ESS contract (2023–24) shows ESS charges of $1,170,000, and the 2024–25 estimate through June was presented as $1,016,000. Board members were shown a breakdown that, according to staff, includes an ESS markup described in the packet as roughly 32 percent over direct substitute pay; district budgeting convention for new positions typically applies an 18 percent loading for salary and benefits.

Board members said understanding the net budget impact is critical. Board member Mr. Rice asked staff to clarify the fee structure and whether the higher cost produced sufficient classroom coverage. A staff member from finance confirmed the figures were derived from actual spend for prior years and a monthly average for the current year.

Staff identified additional costs the district would assume if it resumed in‑house management: employer costs for substitutes who exceed 25 hours per week (an HR estimate of roughly $500,000 in potential insurance costs if a significant number of substitutes became district employees), workers' compensation, recruitment and onboarding, and the vendor‑provided calling/placement system (last year’s contract for that software was listed at about $17,000). The packet also included results of a principals' survey showing generally positive scores for training and responsiveness but a lower average rating—2.61 on a 5‑point scale—on substitute availability.

ESS representatives at the meeting described strategies they use to boost fill rates, including targeted incentives and differentiated pay for more difficult assignments. ESS staff said their approach had increased fills year‑over‑year in the district; an ESS representative, Carly, explained that about “85 cents of every dollar goes towards that substitute in taxes” and payroll costs, with the remaining share covering recruiting, incentives and software.

Board members also discussed incentive models and targeted pay increases for high‑need assignments. Several members said raising pay for long‑term or specialized assignments had improved fills in other districts; staff said those strategies could be implemented either by the vendor or, with additional cost and staffing, by the district.

No motion or vote was taken on the substitute contract at the special meeting; board members asked staff to return with more detailed budget scenarios, including the fiscal impact of potential daily‑rate increases and any changes to vendor markup or pay structures.

The board left the item open for further budget review and requested follow‑up information before any decision about changing the current vendor arrangement.